Roscius

Live in Canada and work remotely into the US. Been doing it for the last 6 years...

"On the reason for the early publication, Prof Martin said it was related to the software the OBR chose to publish to its website, which was more suitable for a small or medium company than a major publication of critical market-sensitive data."

Using WordPress plugins (with the exception of a limited sub-set) is like chewing gum you find on the sidewalk.

A technical oversight fail at multiple levels.

I entirely agree - I have a 30 year career in STEM and am now a senior software architect at a $5b company. I also read, write and speak classical Latin at an advanced (almost fluent) level.

My favourite pastime is quoting Cicero in planning meetings.

I also hire SEs - if I see a resume come in with a CS and liberal arts background, they are definitely going to the top of the pile and getting an interview. If they can explain to me how Plato relates to their work as a SE then the job is theirs...

As the above comment indicates, I guess I may be arguing with ChatGPT, but if it's broke, fix it, don't get rid of it.

Strikes me as victim blaming and misses the point.

Humanities are critical to society and have been for many thousands of years.

Getting rid of the department because of "glum" people, is downright silly.

I've found that asking AI tools to generate a changeset in this case is actually a pretty solid way of starting to learn the mental model.

This. Leveraging the AI to start to develop the mental model is an advantage. But, using the AI is a non-trivial skill set that needs to be learned. Skepticism of what it's saying is important. AI can be really useful just like a 747 can be useful, but you don't want someone picked off the street at random flying it.

I've heard that few can speak Latin 'correctly', because the skill is almost useless

Not useless at all - speaking Latin helps you to better appreciate both prose and poetry. Understanding the sound of the language helps you to appreciate the word play and nuance. Also as children we learn language mostly by listening and speaking, not by reading, so it makes sense to learn Latin in that way.

There's been significant research on reconstructing classical pronunciation. But Latin was spoken as a primary language for over a thousand years, so the pronunciation naturally changed over that time and there were of course regional dialects - some of which evolved into Romance languages.

In reading Latin, it doesn't have a lot of silent letters (it does have some), so it's quite easy to read aloud a Latin sentence once you understand the basic phonetics. In classical times poems like the Aeneid were recited aloud, so doing so today makes sense.

Fluency is a somewhat subjective concept, but the growth of the internet has spawned a growing community of Latin speakers internationally. (I speak Latin at roughly a B2 level and am constantly improving).

contra proferentem - a rule in contract law that states any ambiguity in a contract should be interpreted against the party that drafted it

It is absolutely Matt tweeting.

Dying broke is the optimal way to die.

The definition of broke could be the residual after the planned distributions to heirs. Or if no heirs, dying flat broke makes the most sense. Getting there is tricky.

There still are massive levels of racism particularly in policing and the justice system. Kids are still dying - https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/seven-youth-inque...

Like the senior boys at the schools being taken out in the middle of the night to dig graves...

The Churches are refusing to release the records.

Best intentions? Not even close - horrible racism and genocide.

In many cases it wasn't disease, they were malnourished, and and in some cases beaten to death.

Yes corrected to read "persuasive" (phone auto-corrected).

Non-binding precedent is still precedent. And as you've said, in the absence of an higher court opinion to the contrary, lower court decisions can be taken as precedent and can be considered at the lower court (trial court level).

Lower courts consider new questions of law, otherwise new questions would never be able to be addressed (with some state level advisory opinions aside)

...and you've gotten the legal definition wrong.

That precedent only applies to appellate court decisions is not true. There's persuasive precedent applies amongst courts of the same level.

It the facts and law are the same, a similar lower court decision could indeed be introduced in a similar case. The precedent isn't necessarily binding, but courts will generally defer unless there is a pervasive reason not too.

This is seen when the Supreme Court defers to its previous decisions (stare decisis)

Same love.

And cue the separate, but equal, rhetoric (...longer sigh).

That same sex marriage, isn't a new style of relationship, and that civil unions could never provide the same "privileges" is the whole point.

It's not just semantics, it's about real people.

"While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger." - John Rawls.

Intolerance toward Prop 8 supporters is appropriate due to the threat to liberty that the restriction of same sex marriage creates.

There is no need to be tolerant of someone who threatens your security and liberty.

"Separate but Equal" has been tried before. In Brown v. Board of Education - "Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal". Same can be said of marriage, it's impossible to attain equality in a separate "civil union" status. Also - marriage has been been redefined many times, it's certainly hasn't historically been immutable.